MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Leakage Targets and Socio‐Economic Efficiency

2001· article· en· W2028889521 on OpenAlexaff
F. J.-C. Bouchart, H. M. Salleh, John W Sawkins, Paul Jowitt

Bibliographic record

VenueWater and Environment Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakage (economics)SafeguardingWater qualityEnvironmental economicsBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Environmental scienceNatural resource economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During the last few years, the introduction of mandatory leakage targets for UK water companies has had the positive effect of reducing levels of leakage, while requiring the companies to operate at an economic level of leakage. Unfortunately, the determination of company‐specific economic levels of leakage have been a source of disagreement between the water companies and the Government, with the Government view that water companies are not using the true long‐term marginal costs of water abstraction, and therefore are not safeguarding the environment. This paper (a) reviews the model which was used to define the economic level of leakage, (b) argues the case for resource management based on the impact of water abstractions on the socio‐environmental quality of a resource rather than the myopic focus on leakage reductions, (c) presents the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency in relation to socio‐environmental quality, and (d) proposes a new methodology which allows the determination of water abstraction rates while maintaining a desired level of socio‐environmental quality.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.145 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater and Environment JournalSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207